Health Care Options

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Health Care Options

Postby KeithE » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:10 pm

I suspect, the only reason the insurance companies are dropping out of ObamaCare is that they hope for even more profits under a Republican plan. Please read Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

Record profits
But the claim that corporations are losing money on Obamacare ignores the record-breaking profits and compensation packages that health insurers continue to collect.

Consider UnitedHealth, the nation's largest health insurer that is leaving the marketplace next year. UnitedHealth claims that Obamacare has reduced its 2016 earnings by $850 million. While they might have $850 million less than they wanted, UntedHealth’s profits are still soaring.

In fact, UnitedHealth announced record-breaking profits in 2015, followed by an even better year this year. In July 2016, UnitedHealth celebrated revenues that quarter totalling $46.5 billion, an increase of $10 billion since the same time last year.

Aetna, whose CEO Mark Bertolini reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission a $27.9 million compensation in 2015, has similarly celebrated sky-high profits. “In 2015, we reported annual operating revenue of over $60.3 billion, a record for the Company,” Aetna recently told investors.


Meanwhile they hide profits by increasing administration costs which is now at 17-25%. By contrast Medicare admin costs are 2%.

The fundamental reason for the problems is that neither ObamaCare and GOP replacement plans even attempt to lower medical costs. So-called competition is not doing it. Both the admin costs and medical over-treatment that comes with pay-for-treatment philosophy in all plans using for-profit medicine, for-profit insurers, for-profit pharmaceutics, and for-profit hospitals are to blame. Some limitation on treatment to what is good practice is needed. Other nations do that and that is why they get better results at 40-65% of the cost. Tort reform would also help some.

Image

I agree with the Physicians for a National Health Program recommendation for a single-payer national health insurance program.
Single-Payer National Health Insurance
and wish that the national discussion included this as an option - it is the best one, imo.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Shawn Koester » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:35 am

Amen and testify brother! Healthcare is a human right not a privilege or a money making endeavor for corporations. The Democrats when they had a fillbuster proof majority, they could have stood with the American people and offered up a single payer system but because the Democratic establishment is wedded to corporations, and because they are the Republican Party from 30 years ago, they offered up the Affordable Care Act which originated with Nixon and the Heritage Foundation. It's the same corporate cash cow with all the greed and limitations just with more people on it. You can't say that you want healthcare for all but in your legislation advocate for a bill that will deny and limit care so your corporate criminal buddies can get wealthy at the expense of the least and most vulnerable amongst us.
KeithE wrote:I suspect, the only reason the insurance companies are dropping out of ObamaCare is that they hope for even more profits under a Republican plan. Please read Health insurance industry rakes in billions while blaming Obamacare for losses

Record profits
But the claim that corporations are losing money on Obamacare ignores the record-breaking profits and compensation packages that health insurers continue to collect.

Consider UnitedHealth, the nation's largest health insurer that is leaving the marketplace next year. UnitedHealth claims that Obamacare has reduced its 2016 earnings by $850 million. While they might have $850 million less than they wanted, UntedHealth’s profits are still soaring.

In fact, UnitedHealth announced record-breaking profits in 2015, followed by an even better year this year. In July 2016, UnitedHealth celebrated revenues that quarter totalling $46.5 billion, an increase of $10 billion since the same time last year.

Aetna, whose CEO Mark Bertolini reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission a $27.9 million compensation in 2015, has similarly celebrated sky-high profits. “In 2015, we reported annual operating revenue of over $60.3 billion, a record for the Company,” Aetna recently told investors.


Meanwhile they hide profits by increasing administration costs which is now at 17-25%. By contrast Medicare admin costs are 2%.

The fundamental reason for the problems is that neither ObamaCare and GOP replacement plans even attempt to lower medical costs. So-called competition is not doing it. Both the admin costs and medical over-treatment that comes with pay-for-treatment philosophy in all plans using for-profit medicine, for-profit insurers, for-profit pharmaceutics, and for-profit hospitals are to blame. Some limitation on treatment to what is good practice is needed. Other nations do that and that is why they get better results at 40-65% of the cost. Tort reform would also help some.

Image

I agree with the Physicians for a National Health Program recommendation for a single-payer national health insurance program.
Single-Payer National Health Insurance
and wish that the national discussion included this as an option - it is the best one, imo.
User avatar
Shawn Koester
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:33 am
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Re: Health Care Options

Postby KeithE » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:45 am

Shawn Koester wrote:Amen and testify brother! Healthcare is a human right not a privilege or a money making endeavor for corporations. The Democrats when they had a fillbuster proof majority, they could have stood with the American people and offered up a single payer system but because the Democratic establishment is wedded to corporations, and because they are the Republican Party from 30 years ago, they offered up the Affordable Care Act which originated with Nixon and the Heritage Foundation. It's the same corporate cash cow with all the greed and limitations just with more people on it. You can't say that you want healthcare for all but in your legislation advocate for a bill that will deny and limit care so your corporate criminal buddies can get wealthy at the expense of the least and most vulnerable amongst us.
KeithE wrote:I agree with the Physicians for a National Health Program recommendation for a single-payer national health insurance program.
Single-Payer National Health Insurance
and wish that the national discussion included this as an option - it is the best one, imo.


And testify I will!

Before discussing single payer plans, let me point out one well hidden provision in the current GOP's AHCA bill (RyanCare?).
Concealed within the 123 pages of legislative verbiage and dense boilerplate of the House Republican bill repealing the Affordable Care Act are not a few hard-to-find nuggets. Here’s one crying out for exposure: The bill encourages health insurance companies to pay their top executives more.

It does so by removing the ACA’s limit on corporate tax deductions for executive pay {in excess of $500,000 year}. The cost to the American taxpayer of eliminating this provision: well in excess of $70 million a year.

Source: Here's the secret payoff to health insurance CEOs buried in the GOP Obamacare repeal bill

Not a big point in terms of dollars, but it shows where the GOP’s heart is - it is with corporations and the wealthy. The rest of the RyanCare plan bends the cost curve for health care to be more favorable to the wealthy and against the poor, sick, elderly, those on ObamaCare now (especially those over 50 years old) and will after 2020 severely cut Medicaid which helps struggling people when in medical need. Read Republicans' Obamacare replacement bill: The winners and losers.

Even on average GOP plan to cost Obamacare enrollees $1,542 more a year, $2450 by 2020. To be fair, the GOP argues that those not on ObamaCare (i.e. those with good jobs that have insurance though their jobs) will pay less (although that has not been “scored” yet).

--------------

There are three (that I know of) plans for Single-Payer Health Care.

1) H.R. 676 (introduced in 2003 and re-introduced in 2009 as the ACA was being discussed) - basically a Medicare for All approach that would have provided health insurance for all by increasing individual payroll taxes from 1.45% to 3.45% (employer taxes also going from 1.45% to 3.45%). The CBO may have to refine that number for today’s situation. But as is, for an average salary of $50,000 that would give health care benefits to each person (employed or not) for $1725/year plus the $109/month premium for a total of $3033/year (more if you add a Part C supplement or Part D drug by your own choice). Quite a good deal, more inline with the other OECD countries.
Image

I know I love my Medicare coverage (no deductibles or copays, cheap drugs through Part D - $89/month and $0 for each prescription) and my doctor prefers it to the ACA in terms of his red tape and profits. Medicare does limit treatment to that of good practice and as such has not seen the increase in health care premiums that the ACA or prior systems have engendered; thus is bodes well for the future.

2) The plan offered by the Physicians for a National Health Program
Single-Payer National Health Insurance

3) The Kaiser plan currently under consideration by California
Single-Payer Health Care Bill Introduced In California Senate

I’ll be studying these plans more. For now I need to do other things.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:49 am

One interesting fact about Medicare is that it focuses on health, not disease. For example, my Supplement offers Silver Sneakers benefits that includes gym memberships (such as with the local YMCA). They have discovered this is one of the best investments to keep expenses down for the company's payouts on those they insure. It would seem that most American healthcare models focus on treating diseases rather than preserving health because the only way doctors get paid is for treating diseases.

In looking at what I have been able to see of the GOP alternative rammed through a committee without more than cursory discussion is that it repeats the mistakes of not working for healthy outcomes. It's as though we also think poor people are a dispensable commodity or that we can go back to forcing medical providers to cost-shift their care onto private patients with insurance coverage or who pay their own bills rather than spreading it to the whole pool. It will force group and individual policies through the roof in five years to cover these shifted costs.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Health Care Options

Postby KeithE » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:52 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:One interesting fact about Medicare is that it focuses on health, not disease. For example, my Supplement offers Silver Sneakers benefits that includes gym memberships (such as with the local YMCA). They have discovered this is one of the best investments to keep expenses down for the company's payouts on those they insure. It would seem that most American healthcare models focus on treating diseases rather than preserving health because the only way doctors get paid is for treating diseases.

In looking at what I have been able to see of the GOP alternative rammed through a committee without more than cursory discussion is that it repeats the mistakes of not working for healthy outcomes. It's as though we also think poor people are a dispensable commodity or that we can go back to forcing medical providers to cost-shift their care onto private patients with insurance coverage or who pay their own bills rather than spreading it to the whole pool. It will force group and individual policies through the roof in five years to cover these shifted costs.


I get gym membership for $15/month through my Supplemental Part C plan as well. Last year I got it for free with Silver Sneakers but my gym pulled out of that program.

Not sure what the AHCA (RyanCare?) does with the ObamaCare prevention medicine measures (scroll to bottom for 15 adults measures). That is not being mentioned in Ryan’s broadcast going on right now (I suspect it will be eliminated via administrative action by Tom Price in the so-called second prong of the GOP/Trump plan with 2nd and 3rd prongs not even outlined). Planned Parenthood for preventive mammography screening will be eliminated just because well they are Planned Parenthood.

I see where Ryan is offering no numbers in terms of premium costs or overall costs at a national level, just hand waving with what he calls “principles” - like free markets are always best, trust me. What I have noticed in his presentation is that AHCA is against giving poor people a break at all - typical Republican. So at a fundamental “principle” level, I cannot agree.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Sandy » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:31 pm

I agree, from what I've read and seen, that the alternative Republican plan is just a tax break scheme for the wealthy, and not really much of a health care plan at all. Fortunately, it seems there are enough Republicans to keep it from happening. I guess the size, scope and tone of crowds at town halls, and a combination of polling data, have convinced many of them that they will not be re-elected, even in deep red states, if they don't at least cover as much as Obamacare, and lower the cost. Well, that's what the orange haired buffoon said they'd do. So I guess there are some Republicans who realize that their political career is tied to the perception of the public related to how their health care plan comes off.

I think many of the Europeans look at incentives for prevention as part of what they offer as well. I know they do in Switzerland. For a long time, when I had a policy with Aetna, there were some rate discounts and benefits provided for things like membership in the ymca, or weight watchers.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8044
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Dave Roberts » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:39 am

The question for the GOP should lie in the promotion of Health Savings Accounts as a replacement for subsidies. How many poor people can afford to put money into health savings accounts? The answer should be obvious.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Mrs Haruo » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:04 pm

The answers SHOULD be obvious, but there are way too many in today's GOP who seem to live in a world of gold plated faucets and mink toilet seat covers and if they have any idea of the struggles of average Jane and Joe Doe, they forgot them years ago in the mindless rush for the almighty dollar.
Don't despair if your job and your rewards are few, remember that the mighty oak was once a nut like you!
User avatar
Mrs Haruo
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Mrs Haruo » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:05 pm

The answers SHOULD be obvious, but there are way too many in today's GOP who seem to live in a world of gold plated faucets and mink toilet seat covers and if they have any idea of the struggles of average Jane and Joe Doe, they forgot them years ago in the mindless rush for the almighty dollar.
Don't despair if your job and your rewards are few, remember that the mighty oak was once a nut like you!
User avatar
Mrs Haruo
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Health Care Options

Postby JE Pettibone » Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:05 am

Mrs Haruo wrote:The answers SHOULD be obvious, but there are way too many in today's GOP who seem to live in a world of gold plated faucets and mink toilet seat covers and if they have any idea of the struggles of average Jane and Joe Doe, they forgot them years ago in the mindless rush for the almighty dollar.


ED: Mrs. H. I have been well enough acquainted with a few Republican politicians in whose hones I and have attended social functions and I have yet to see any gold planted faucets or mink toilet seat covers. BTW the sink faucet in the barh room of our motor home has a gold tone plating, as do the drawer handles in the kitchen, bath, and bed room,
and I could replace them all for less than $125.00.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Health Care Options

Postby William Thornton » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:46 am

While I share many of the conclusions of my mod lib friends on healthcare, nothing about solutions is obvious,or simple.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11710
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Dave Roberts » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:58 am

William Thornton wrote:While I share many of the conclusions of my mod lib friends on healthcare, nothing about solutions is obvious,or simple.


Which means that the GOP wasted the last six years taking meaningless repeal votes rather than going to work to fix problems in the ACA. It seems they have forgotten their oath to uphold the Constitution which does contain the words "promote the general welfare." Guess the opposition to Obama was more important than the health of American citizens.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6887
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Tim Bonney » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:06 am

Dave Roberts wrote:The question for the GOP should lie in the promotion of Health Savings Accounts as a replacement for subsidies. How many poor people can afford to put money into health savings accounts? The answer should be obvious.


The Iowa Annual Conference UMC uses a high deductible group plan with an HSA. They contribute some funds to it but there contributions have gone down year by year so that I now have to put funds into the account to keep the balance near or above the large annual deductible.

The best health insurance I had was about 10 years ago. Ever since the value of the insurance has declined and the cost has risen. I figure I'm out myself now $6000-$7000 more per year in health care costs than I was a decade ago, and that is with a large group plan.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Sandy » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:27 pm

Is it really all that complicated?

What's the priority, the needs of people, or the use of pain, and access to medical treatment that saves lives as economic commodities to generate profits? It can't be both. Once the priorities are in place, then developing a workable, and relatively simple plan shouldn't be a problem. The Canadians have one. So do most of the European countries.

The current Republican administration doesn't have a realistic perspective of the ACA, all they seem to want to do is make false statements that pander to their base, and that's probably why they are finding this so complicated. What they promised was to deliver a program that would provide a higher level of health care to everyone, at a much lower cost. And they're going to have to conclude that people aren't as stupid as they think they are, and that most people will be able to tell whether they got better health care, better benefits, and paid less than they do now. If that doesn't happen, and soon, then the Democrats will have another shot at health care reform after the 2018 elections.

Personally, I'm an advocate for a nationalized health care system. The improvements in access to quality care, and from research and development that would result from the increased investment of resources directly into health care would be worth the trouble of making the shift. And I'd certainly be OK accessing the same quality health care that Canadians get, and keeping the 50% more that we currently pay which goes to "administrative costs" and "dividends and profits."
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8044
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:03 am

Shawn Koester wrote:...Healthcare is a human right...
Shawn, would you tease out this statement, what this means and the implications? Thanks.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:59 am

Sandy wrote:Personally, I'm an advocate for a nationalized health care system. The improvements in access to quality care, and from research and development that would result from the increased investment of resources directly into health care would be worth the trouble of making the shift. And I'd certainly be OK accessing the same quality health care that Canadians get, and keeping the 50% more that we currently pay which goes to "administrative costs" and "dividends and profits."


I don't know why the US is so afraid of doing this. Our system now is on the verge of collapse where costs for insurance and making it less and less likely that even middle class Americans will have it.

Right now if TrumpCare passes it will cost most people more money and, according to studies I've read, those who voted for Trump will be some of the people most effected by the increased cost. So if you voted for Trump, congratulations, you voted against your own self interest.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Health Care Options

Postby KeithE » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:26 pm

Well the CBO analysis is out. Better than anything I can do, analytics-wise. Here is the 28 page full text from the CBO (minus the Tables, which I cannot find).

There are pros and cons between the AHCA (aka RyanCare) and the continuation of the ACA (aka ObamaCare). I will be reading the 28 page and noting pros and cons of the AHCA below:

Pros:
1) AHCA will reduce the deficit by $337B by 2026. Outlays reduced by $1.2T but tax revenues would be reduced by 0.9T (partly ending taxes to rich people/big companies in ObamaCare and partly due to less insured and less preventive care covered).

2) Premiums (averaged over all ages) will be 10% down by 2026 under the AHCA (but note #2 Con).

Neutral:
1) Budget differences between AHCA and ACA are minor (<$5B/year) for years 2027 and beyond.

2) Premiums will be down for the young and up for older folks (50 to 65 Medicare)

3) 30% surcharge on enrollees that have been uninsured for 63 days within the previous year.

4) The stability of the health insurance market is unchanged (though neither AHCA and ACA will lead to a stable market year after year). (i.e. Republican claims that additional choices will result is not real).


Cons:
1) 14M more people would be uninsured next year (2018) with AHCA vs ACA (20M more in 2020, and 24M in 2026). The total uninsured by 2026 with AHCA is 54M (that is 1/6 of Americans) vs 24M with ACA (1/13the of America).

2) Premiums of the “nongroup” people (these w/o group insurance through employer) will go up by 15-20% through 2020.

3) Requirements on the insurance provided correctly must meet 60% of the fully compatible insurance provisions.That requirement will end by 2020. Thus theinsrance coverage will be less (for instance not im=ncluding out preventive medicine requirements). Note this is the reason the premiums will begin to become less expensive vs the ACA after 2010.

4) $100B less allotments to the states from 2018-2026 for Medicaid.

5) Estimate increased load on Medicare due to increased numbers of uninsured receiving treatment at hospitals of $43B over the 2017-2026

----------------------
Ok there is much more smaller stuff. Overall, more Cons than Pros in voting for RyanCare. Thus Price is already out swinging (Trump was swinging before it came out).

The big winner is the young/rich and big losers are old/poor and the states. As an example, a tax credit for someone under 30 is $2000/year (regardless of income) while that for someone over 60 is $4000/year. A 2:1 ratio. Meanwhile the difference is allowable premiums is 5:1. A 60-65 making $50K/year would likely pay $15,000/year for health insurance just when they need it most.

Also note that those who make over $500,000 year had a Medicare payroll deduction increase by 0.9% (from 1.45% to 2.35%) under the ACA (ObamaCare). That has been eliminated with the AHCA costly a reduction of revenues of $123B over 10 years Eliminating Two ACA Medicare Taxes Means Very Large Tax Cuts for High Earners and the Wealthy.

I also continue to note that the AHCA or the ACA do little reduce health care cost themselves - they continue the motivation to overtreat since pay is received by how much service is done. Medicare and most other countries put more stringent limitations on treatment to that medically recommended.

I’d loved to see a CBO analysis of the Medicare-for-All (H.R. 876). That was never allowed to be scored.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:36 pm

Thanks for the detailed analysis Keith!

As you say, neither Obamacare or Ryan/Trump/GOPcare address the real problem. As long as we still with a system with a patch work of for profit insurance companies the US will continue to pay more for healthcare than any other nation and, as a result, be able to provide less actual care to its citizens.

I think the only good solution is a universal healthcare system. I'm not holding my breath for it any time soon. My theory is that the middle class is going to have to have a very high percentage of loss of reasonable coverage before this can be turned around. When the pain is enough the system will change.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Health Care Options

Postby KeithE » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:33 am

Another way of looking at it.

The AHCA will save $337B through 2016 but 24 M less people are covered by 2026 (14 M by 2018 and 21M by 2020). Average over the period is 21.0M uninsured (details:14M in 2018, 17.5M in 2019, 21M in 2020, 21.5M in 2021, 22.0M in 2022, 22.5M in 2023, 23.0M in in 2024,23.5M in 2025 and 24M in 2026)

That 21M would normally spend 21M x $10,345/year average health costs person = $217B/year or $1955B over 9 years (2018-2026). And that assumes no increases in healthcare costs from the July 2016 date of the link above (a large underestimate).

But even with that assumption, that is quite a savings ($1955B) on the backs of those unable (or unwilling) to pay for health insurance. But the prediction is that the US budget will be saving only $337B over those years. Avoids paying out $1955B but saves only $337B.

Where did the other savings go? One answer is that rich people (joint income over $250,000/year) are given $346B in tax breaks (more accurately are relieved of tax burdens put on them by ACA that the AHCA drops).

Wealthy Americans — especially those households with incomes above $200,000 — would be better off under the bill primarily because they would no longer pay two major taxes levied as part of the Affordable Care Act.

One is 0.9 percent on taxpayers earning more than $200,000 in wages and salaries a year, or $250,000 for married couples. Those households must also pay a surcharge of 3.8 percent on income from several kinds of investments. Together, these taxes are projected to raise $346 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.


I suspect the other savings will go to the health insurance industry. I know that they (and all businesses) will again be able to write-off excessive CEO salaries (that above $500,000 year) that was no allowed in the ACA (the GOP saw to it, quietly, that that provision of the ACA was dropped).

Is there no end to the GOP grab to favor the rich and big corporations despite the massive growth in inequality (measured by the Gini ratio) we have already seen since 1970???

Image
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Tim Bonney » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:42 am

I can understand why the GOP leadership likes this. It helps them give their rich buddies tax cuts. But I may never understand why working class Americans would vote for a billionaire playboy who has never done without a day in his life and think that he would understand their needs or even care about them.

Already I'm seeing posts from Trump supporters who are disappointed that he isn't doing anything positive for them. What did they expect from President Daddy Warbucks? :?
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5509
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Health Care Options

Postby William Thornton » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:10 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:But I may never understand why working class Americans would vote for a billionaire playboy who has never done without a day in his life and think that he would understand their needs or even care about them. :?


Neither did Hil...and she lost. Might be a good time to figure this out.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11710
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Health Care Options

Postby KeithE » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:20 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:I can understand why the GOP leadership likes this. It helps them give their rich buddies tax cuts. But I may never understand why working class Americans would vote for a billionaire playboy who has never done without a day in his life and think that he would understand their needs or even care about them.

Already I'm seeing posts from Trump supporters who are disappointed that he isn't doing anything positive for them. What did they expect from President Daddy Warbucks? :?

Amen. Quite a marketing ploy by Trump. The trouble is, it was based on a bevy of lies.

I’m still waiting on any infrastructure spending that would stimulate the economy with moderate income construction jobs. Nor have I seen any improvement in manufacturing jobs (which was the backbone of Trump “rust belt” support). Or better yet, retraining programs for those displaced over the last few decades. We need more accountability agents for one; alternative energy for another.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Health Care Options

Postby KeithE » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:32 am

William Thornton wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:But I may never understand why working class Americans would vote for a billionaire playboy who has never done without a day in his life and think that he would understand their needs or even care about them. :?


Neither did Hil...and she lost. Might be a good time to figure this out.

Might be a good time to call a mis-election (like a mis-trial) based on a flawed election (uncommonly high degree of lies being told, Russian interference). Have a re-election with new candidates.

Lacking that (yes I know that will not happen), start the protests at town halls to correct the mis-winds going on. Impeach if necessary (even Pence would be better).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8271
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Health Care Options

Postby Sandy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:39 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:I can understand why the GOP leadership likes this. It helps them give their rich buddies tax cuts. But I may never understand why working class Americans would vote for a billionaire playboy who has never done without a day in his life and think that he would understand their needs or even care about them.

Already I'm seeing posts from Trump supporters who are disappointed that he isn't doing anything positive for them. What did they expect from President Daddy Warbucks? :?


http://www.msnbc.com/all

Some excellent insights from a town hall meeting with Bernie Sanders, coordinated by Chris Hayes of All In on MSNBC. The town hall was in deep red McDowell County, West Virginia, an area that voted heavily for Trump largely because he promised them they would get better health care coverage than they can now access through the ACA for less money. Now they expect him to deliver, and are realizing that the GOP Congress wants to bust up not only the ACA, but just about every other benefit they get, because they use the trash word "entitlements," in order to give billionaires a tax cut. The learning curve on the ACA was long, but now that its in place, most Americans see, and experience, its benefits. The rhetoric from the right, including the buffoon, doesn't match the facts. The GOP can come up with whatever names and declarations it wants, if their "repeal and replace" is, in fact, just a "bust up the entitlement" plan, and does not provide Americans with greater access and health care coverage at a lower price than they pay now, which is what was promised, then you can count on a deep, Democratic majority in both houses after the 2018 mid terms.

This is a deep red county in a deep red state, one of the deepest. But I think the expectations are clear, as Sanders lays them out, and the loudest applause was reserved for a man who makes a statement about being surprised that a senator from the Northeast is more sympathetic to the people of West Virginia than Mitch McConnell. That's a wake up call.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8044
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Health Care Options

Postby William Thornton » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:51 pm

KeithE wrote:
William Thornton wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:But I may never understand why working class Americans would vote for a billionaire playboy who has never done without a day in his life and think that he would understand their needs or even care about them. :?


Neither did Hil...and she lost. Might be a good time to figure this out.

Might be a good time to call a mis-election (like a mis-trial) based on a flawed election (uncommonly high degree of lies being told, Russian interference). Have a re-election with new candidates.

Lacking that (yes I know that will not happen), start the protests at town halls to correct the mis-winds going on. Impeach if necessary (even Pence would be better).


Dream on, bro. Hmmm...just heard that Hil's people were meeting with the Russkies.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11710
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Next

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests